Allahabad High Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case

Father Sentenced to Life for Strangling Daughter; Circumstantial Evidence Proves Crucial

In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has upheld the conviction of Raju Batham, who was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of his minor daughter, Shivani Kashyap. The judgment, delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justices Rajnish Kumar and Rajeev Singh, was based on circumstantial evidence, with the court confirming the trial court's findings.

The case, originating from Unnao district, involved the tragic death of Shivani, who was strangled using a cloth string. Despite family members turning hostile during the trial, the High Court found the chain of circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution compelling enough to establish Batham's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The prosecution had successfully demonstrated that Shivani was last seen alive with her father at home, who failed to offer a plausible explanation for her death. The recovery of the cloth string, deemed the murder weapon, on Batham’s indication further bolstered the prosecution’s case.

Citing Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the court emphasized that once the prosecution establishes basic facts indicating the accused's involvement, the burden shifts to the accused to explain circumstances within their special knowledge. Batham's inability to provide such an explanation was seen as a critical link in the chain of evidence against him.

The judgment also noted the procedural adherence to Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the admissibility of the recovered cloth string. The court dismissed Batham’s appeal, noting that the trial court had rightly convicted him based on the complete chain of circumstantial evidence, which excluded any hypothesis consistent with his innocence.

The case underscores the judicial reliance on circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct eyewitness testimony, reaffirming legal principles that such evidence, when consistent and comprehensive, can conclusively establish guilt.

Bottom Line:

Conviction based on circumstantial evidence - Burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 shifts to the accused when the prosecution successfully establishes the basic facts of the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Sections 27, 106, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 374(2), Section 313

Raju Batham v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(Lucknow)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2812347